At 8/15/2011 12:18:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Rights are the proper limits on the social action of rational animals.

I would argue that "rights for animals" are instead exploring the proper limits of human-animal interaction.

It is one thing for a dog in heat to chase around another dog. It is quite another for a mentally-coherent, consenting human to forcibly have sex with a dog.

Part of that interaction between humans and animals includes societies right to put down an animal that has been a repeated danger to society (not unlike capital punishment).

Human social rules only govern the actions of humans. Just because we won't receive societal reciprocity (such as the case might be with an advanced autistic boy), doesn't immediately exclude them from consideration.

Likewise, we need to recognize that our treatment of life-forms should correspond to their species. One could argue that nearly sentient animals deserve one set of rights while non-sentient mammals (however you demarcate that) and lizards have another. Insects (especially those likely to spread disease) have even less rights (probably a "shoot to kill" mentality).

And no, I am not suggesting I know some objective moral code for how to treat different animals. I am giving an example of how one might structure morals for animals/plants/insects.

Cody said before, and I basically agree with him, that 'rights' are a system of human agreements about how to treat each other so we can live in a functional, tolerable society together. I see no problem with extending such agreements to animals - I know lots of people are horrified by the amount of suffering inflicted on pigs, chickens and other farm animals by the meat industry.

At 8/15/2011 12:30:30 PM, Wnope wrote:It is one thing for a dog in heat to chase around another dog. It is quite another for a mentally-coherent, consenting human to forcibly have sex with a dog.

And what if the bestial relationship is one in which neither is harmed, and the animal appears willing? Besides, if we can kill and eat animals without their permission, it hardly seems rational to claim that we aren't allowed to have sex with them without their permission.

At 8/15/2011 12:18:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Rights are the proper limits on the social action of rational animals.

I would argue that "rights for animals" are instead exploring the proper limits of human-animal interaction.

There are no proper limitations.

It is one thing for a dog in heat to chase around another dog. It is quite another for a mentally-coherent, consenting human to forcibly have sex with a dog.

Makes no difference to the dog, and the dog will neither retaliate nor reciprocate on failure to do such a violent thing.

Human social rules only govern the actions of humans. Just because we won't receive societal reciprocity (such as the case might be with an advanced autistic boy), doesn't immediately exclude them from consideration.\

What other purpose of respecting rights is there but to receive reciprocity?

And no, I am not suggesting I know some objective moral code for how to treat different animals. I am giving an example of how one might structure morals for animals/plants/insects.

No, you aren't giving an example, you're just asserting that it can be done without doing it.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 8/15/2011 12:18:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Rights are the proper limits on the social action of rational animals.

I would argue that "rights for animals" are instead exploring the proper limits of human-animal interaction.

There are no proper limitations.

It is one thing for a dog in heat to chase around another dog. It is quite another for a mentally-coherent, consenting human to forcibly have sex with a dog.

Makes no difference to the dog, and the dog will neither retaliate nor reciprocate on failure to do such a violent thing.

Human social rules only govern the actions of humans. Just because we won't receive societal reciprocity (such as the case might be with an advanced autistic boy), doesn't immediately exclude them from consideration.\

What other purpose of respecting rights is there but to receive reciprocity?

And no, I am not suggesting I know some objective moral code for how to treat different animals. I am giving an example of how one might structure morals for animals/plants/insects.

No, you aren't giving an example, you're just asserting that it can be done without doing it.

Interesting, so if you were put in a society where a fair proportion are mentally disabled or unable to respect "reciprocity" then you have no qualms with taking all their rights, including a right to life, away?

BTW, saying you have no rights is different from restricting rights such as putting someone in a controlled environment due to not respecting societal rules (ex. jail, mental asylum). We restrict the rights of children, the mentally disabled, and the insane (gun-buying ability).

Unless you think extreme physical pain makes no difference to the dog, then you are right. However, you are only considering the dogs response to you. It's like saying there is nothing wrong with beating someone who is autistic or schizophrenic because they would probably beat other people up without provocation.

Children under the age of 3 have quite a hard time following societal rules in terms of reciprocity. Do they have no rights, or do they have restricted rights?

Your pragmatic moral assumption is noted (why do it if not for reciprocity), but it is no more valid than a utilitarian or objectivist premise. All moral systems tread on the same thin ice.

We can either spend the thread talking about how there cannot be an answer since "rights" cannot be established from positive statements without an implicit normative assumption, or we can talk about how we might in reality shape the privileges and abilities of non-humans.

I simply hope you aren't arguing something as silly as rights for humans being objectively based while rights for animals are not.

At 8/15/2011 2:23:21 PM, Wnope wrote:Interesting, so if you were put in a society where a fair proportion are mentally disabled or unable to respect "reciprocity" then you have no qualms with taking all their rights, including a right to life, away?

As far as I know most mental disabilities don't work that way. But if they lack rationality or reciprocity they have no rights.

BTW, saying you have no rights is different from restricting rights such as putting someone in a controlled environment due to not respecting societal rules (ex. jail, mental asylum).

The latter is a contradiction.

Unless you think extreme physical pain makes no difference to the dog, then you are right. However, you are only considering the dogs response to you. It's like saying there is nothing wrong with beating someone who is autistic or schizophrenic because they would probably beat other people up without provocation.

I don't think autism or schizophrenia works that way.

Children under the age of 3 have quite a hard time following societal rules in terms of reciprocity. Do they have no rights, or do they have restricted rights?

Some have rights, some don't, there is no such thing as "restricted rights."

Your pragmatic moral assumption is noted (why do it if not for reciprocity), but it is no more valid than a utilitarian or objectivist premise. All moral systems tread on the same thin ice.

Why do it is a question, not an answer. And btw, that's an Objectivist premise, pragmatism in philosophy is an epistemic position I do not share.On what does my premise tread? DO YOU SEEK TO LIVE? Y/N.I don't think utilitarians or intrinsicists (which you seem to be calling objectivists) have that sort of ground to tread on.

I simply hope you aren't arguing something as silly as rights for humans being objectively based while rights for animals are not.

Is it not objectively true that humans are capable of rationality, seek to live, and have reciprocal needs in order to do so reliably?

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 8/15/2011 2:23:21 PM, Wnope wrote:Interesting, so if you were put in a society where a fair proportion are mentally disabled or unable to respect "reciprocity" then you have no qualms with taking all their rights, including a right to life, away?

As far as I know most mental disabilities don't work that way. But if they lack rationality or reciprocity they have no rights.

BTW, saying you have no rights is different from restricting rights such as putting someone in a controlled environment due to not respecting societal rules (ex. jail, mental asylum).

The latter is a contradiction.

Unless you think extreme physical pain makes no difference to the dog, then you are right. However, you are only considering the dogs response to you. It's like saying there is nothing wrong with beating someone who is autistic or schizophrenic because they would probably beat other people up without provocation.

I don't think autism or schizophrenia works that way.

Children under the age of 3 have quite a hard time following societal rules in terms of reciprocity. Do they have no rights, or do they have restricted rights?

Some have rights, some don't, there is no such thing as "restricted rights."

Your pragmatic moral assumption is noted (why do it if not for reciprocity), but it is no more valid than a utilitarian or objectivist premise. All moral systems tread on the same thin ice.

Why do it is a question, not an answer. And btw, that's an Objectivist premise, pragmatism in philosophy is an epistemic position I do not share.On what does my premise tread? DO YOU SEEK TO LIVE? Y/N.I don't think utilitarians or intrinsicists (which you seem to be calling objectivists) have that sort of ground to tread on.

I simply hope you aren't arguing something as silly as rights for humans being objectively based while rights for animals are not.

Is it not objectively true that humans are capable of rationality, seek to live, and have reciprocal needs in order to do so reliably?

So, under this dichotomous reasoning, you either have rights or no rights, but you cannot have restricted rights. Then why does a criminal retain a rights to property but not a right (if it is a right) to vote or own a gun?

When I talk about mentall illness, autism, and schizophrenia, I talk about people who are in states where they have a major if not total deficit when it comes to relating with society. You can be as nice as like to a schizophrenic, if he hears voices commanding him to attack you, no amount of reciprocity will stop him.

Those with autism lack a certain empathic ability (interestingly, in an area of the brain right next to a brain area whose lesion is associated with sociopathy) which makes it hard if not impossible to "step into someone elses shoes." They hug a dog, but because they cannot put themselves in the dogs place and only can respond to their own perceptions, they can hug the dog too hard until they hurt it. This is associated with their complete inability to read emotional facial cues (which involves social learning) without training.

Ironically, as someone who has had to deal extensively with Objectivists, I hate to break it to you, but you follow Rand exactly.

Rand wasn't outwardly pragmatist. Her "solution" to the is-ought was to assume your moral axiom: "if someone believes that they ought to act in order to survive, they ought to..."

It's a silly trick.

The positive statement/truth evaluation is "I wish to live."

Rand and yourself then sneak in a qualifier and say "Oh, and morals ought to be those which allow you to live."

It's pragmatism wrapped in shiny tinfoil. A hidden "ought" pretending to be an "is."

You are on "better ground" than a utilitarians because you assume your pragmatic "we ought to follow a moral system that leads to our personal survival." You're begging the question.

Now, if you start off by saying "if I want to live, then I ought to..." but that is just as valid as saying "If I want the most people to have the greatest happiness, then I ought to..."

Don't feel bad, nobody has beaten "is-ought" that I know of without adopting platonic forms (which is one heck of an ontological sacrifice if you ask me).

So, under this dichotomous reasoning, you either have rights or no rights, but you cannot have restricted rights. Then why does a criminal retain a rights to property but not a right (if it is a right) to vote or own a gun?

They don't.

When I talk about mentall illness, autism, and schizophrenia, I talk about people who are in states where they have a major if not total deficit when it comes to relating with society. You can be as nice as like to a schizophrenic, if he hears voices commanding him to attack you, no amount of reciprocity will stop him.

If, on the other hand, he hears voices that don't relate to you, his reciprocity will.

Autism is a spectrum incidentally.

The positive statement/truth evaluation is "I wish to live."Rand and yourself then sneak in a qualifier and say "Oh, and morals ought to be those which allow you to live."

No, it's "Morality is a set of rules describing the general case of behavior appropriate to a goal." There's no "morality ought to be" anything, that's incoherent, all oughts begin where morality does. If life is your goal, then by the definition of morality here, that which is moral is that which suits your goal.

Certainly, there are alternative definitions of morality, if you have one to propose, we can discuss whether it makes more sense to use that one.

Now, if you start off by saying "if I want to live, then I ought to..." but that is just as valid as saying "If I want the most people to have the greatest happiness, then I ought to..."

I don't want the latter, hence, it might be equally valid, but it's not equally sound.

Whereas I can prove that you want to live, by the fact that you've bothered to eat enough to be alive today.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.